4 ms·
Orrick also dismissed McKernan and Ortiz's copyright infringement claims entirely. Well, duh. The judge is helping out the plaintiffs in this case. A jury woul
by williamcotton 3y ago
Orrick also dismissed McKernan and Ortiz's copyright infringement claims entirely.
Well, duh. The judge is helping out the plaintiffs in this case. A jury would have been easily convinced by the defense that no images produced by Stability's systems are visually derivative.
The key is indeed what follows:
The judge allowed Andersen to continue pursuing her key claim that Stability's alleged use of her work to train Stable Diffusion infringed her copyrights.
So unless there is some kind of summary judgement I would wager that this becomes the focus of both sides as this heads towards trial.
But that's it. As predicted by commentary from legal scholars, the outputs of Stable Diffusion are distinct from the model and are not infringing on copyright... at least for this complaint!
- gamblor956 3y agoNo, he dismissed McKernan and Ortiz because they didn't register their images for U.S. copyright, which is a foundational prerequisite for any copyright lawsuit (in the U.S.) This simply means that they need to register their images for copyright before they can re-join the case. (https://www.gibsondunn.com/supreme-court-holds-that-copyright-owners-may-not-sue-for-infringement-until-copyright-office-processes-registration/ https://www.gibsondunn.com/supreme-court-holds-that-copyrigh...) EDIT: reading the linked PDF further, and it appears that McK and O's legal counsel stated that the two weren't asserting the copyright claims at all, which is why they were dismissed with prejudice. That means that they can't re-join the case by filing for copyrights for their images...Their lawyer fucked up pretty badly and if I were either of them I'd be filing a malpractice lawsuit.
- starshadowx2 3y agoIsn't that linked case because they started to file for copyright and then sued rather than waiting for it to be completed first? In this case they never filed in the first place, and it was dismissed with prejudice.
- williamcotton 3y agoI'll check PACER and read the actual ruling when I'm at work tomorrow, but yeah I'm interpreting "dismissed entirely" as "dismissed with prejudice". You're entirely correct that if it was dismissed without prejudice the complaints on copyright infringement on the outputs could be amended and refiled.
- starshadowx2 3y agoThis is from the PDF: In opposition, plaintiffs do not address, much less contest, McKernan or Ortiz’s asserted inability to pursue Copyright Act claims. At oral argument, plaintiffs’ counsel clarified that they are not asserting copyright claims on behalf of these two plaintiffs. July 19, 2023 Transcript (Tr.), pg. 17:1-5. As such, McKernan and Ortiz’s copyright act claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
- williamcotton 3y agoRe: EDIT Another interpretation is that the plaintiffs were well aware of how weak their case was with regards to the outputs and basically planned on abandoning it from the start. There's been more than a bit of showmanship from the plaintiff's counsel so I'm not surprised that the actual legal tactics differ from the rhetoric of the blog posts. It's also common to stack the complaint so that when the judge does start focusing on the key issues that maybe a little more ends up at trial than otherwise. There's winning in the court of public opinion and then there's winning in a Federal court.
- michaelbrave 3y agoI'm not convinced the training on copyrighted things argument will hold up either.